Karnataka HC rejects PhonePe’s plea against information sharing | Bengaluru News

Bengaluru: The high court has rejected a petition by PhonePe Private Limited challenging a notice from Bengaluru cyber policeseeking sharing of information.”The duty to protect data must yield where public interest and criminal investigation intersect. The protection of consumer privacy cannot eclipse the lawful imperative of investigating officers to secure evidence and take investigation to its logical conclusion.Confidentiality must coexist with accountability,” the court said. PhonePe had contested the notice issued on Dec 7, 2022, under Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The company argued against providing confidential transaction details of registered users without a complete investigation being conducted first. They claimed status as an intermediary under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, stating that the National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI) was the actual owner of the Unified Payment Interface (UPI) platform.The company maintained it was merely a system provider governed by the Payment and Settlement Systems Act-2007. They argued that the Bankers Books Evidence Act- 1891, prohibited sharing confidential customer information, and noted that neither the company nor its employees were accused in the case.Police countered that they possess authority to request information for fair investigation of cyber crimes, citing the central govt guidelines under Section 87 of the IT Act. They alleged PhonePe violated guidelines by safeguarding merchants involved in cricket betting.Justice M Nagaprasanna, examining the case involving a complaint about Rs 6,150 lost through cricket betting applications, noted that CrPC Section 91 authorises summoning documents while acknowledging limitations under other acts.The court concluded that statutory safeguards cannot shield institutions from investigation when criminal activity is suspected, emphasising that modern cyber crimes require swift responses, allowing police to uncover digital evidence within legal boundaries while balancing privacy concerns with investigative necessities.Bengaluru: The high court has rejected a petition by PhonePe Private Limited challenging a notice from Bengaluru cyber police seeking sharing of information.”The duty to protect data must yield where public interest and criminal investigation intersect. The protection of consumer privacy cannot eclipse the lawful imperative of investigating officers to secure evidence and take investigation to its logical conclusion. Confidentiality must coexist with accountability,” the court said. PhonePe had contested the notice issued on Dec 7, 2022, under Section 91 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). The company argued against providing confidential transaction details of registered users without a complete investigation being conducted first. They claimed status as an intermediary under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, stating that the National Payments Corporation of India (NPCI) was the actual owner of the Unified Payment Interface (UPI) platform.The company maintained it was merely a system provider governed by the Payment and Settlement Systems Act-2007. They argued that the Bankers Books Evidence Act- 1891, prohibited sharing confidential customer information, and noted that neither the company nor its employees were accused in the case.Police countered that they possess authority to request information for fair investigation of cyber crimes, citing the central govt guidelines under Section 87 of the IT Act. They alleged PhonePe violated guidelines by safeguarding merchants involved in cricket betting.Justice M Nagaprasanna, examining the case involving a complaint about Rs 6,150 lost through cricket betting applications, noted that CrPC Section 91 authorises summoning documents while acknowledging limitations under other acts.The court concluded that statutory safeguards cannot shield institutions from investigation when criminal activity is suspected, emphasising that modern cyber crimes require swift responses, allowing police to uncover digital evidence within legal boundaries while balancing privacy concerns with investigative necessities.